I would definately take you up on that bet if we were closer (geograhically), sounds like it would be a long fun day of shooting, cause I've yet to have my TRP 1911 jam. Of course the most rounds I have ever put through it in one session is around 600 (at Thunder Ranch), a torture test would be interesting. You got me thinking though, how many rounds could I put through my gun (without cleaning) before it starts misbehaving. I'm really curious and will start the torture test on my TRP. I will report my findings.

I can't knock the Glocks, Sigs, HKs, none of my mine have ever jammed and I would feel equally protected with any of them or my 1911. I have shot all these types of guns extensively and I know that I do my best work with my TRP 1911. Of course if you spend most of your time with a Glock, then I'm sure you can make that gun perform for you. I guess we are all bias in what we like, what we have, etc. The best handgun for me is a TRP 1911, the best for you is going to be whatever handgun you decide to put the time into. I also have a couple WWII 1911's but I would not even begin to compare that to modern guns like Glocks & Sigs or my TRP 1911.

I used to be a doubter of the 1911 as some of you are, until I bought a really good one.

zazou,

You contradicted yourself here.  You claim that this is a Glock vs. 1911 argument and then state the reasons for preferring the 1911 are accuracy, grip, .45 ACP round, and better trigger.  You also state reliability is roughly equal for each.

So clue me in on why you think a Glock is better?

I don't have to consider the "legend" aspect.  I have tried both firearms and prefer 1911s.  You have a lot more choices on things you can do with a 1911 as opposed to a Glock.  You are welcome to your preferences for a Glock, but don't slam my preference for a 1911 when you cited the advantages noted earlier.

It pretty much comes down to [i]trigger, trigger, trigger.[/i]

A short, crisp, light trigger is hard to beat.
For various bureaucratic and legal reasons, most semiauto pistols sport long heavy DA triggers or mush triggers. These can not compete with the trigger on a 1911 or similar single action. Trigger control is [i]very[/i] important.

A second reason is the good grip on the 1911, many of the "modern" designs are more interested in double column magazines than properly fitting a typical hand.

There are several pistols that are basically just as good as the 1911. The Browning HP, CZ-75, SIG P-210, and probably some others. These three are typically 9 mm (although .40 and .45 version of the HP and CZ have been made).

Man, I sure love that 1911 I built.
At the time, I had been a pain in the ass kid, who liked guns, and knew a lot about them, as well as having been raised shooting.
When my parents divorced, I had to go with anti-mom, so I was cut off from my beloved guns. I was on the borderline of going down the wrong paths in my life, and Mr. Jim kinda took me under his wing. He and I spent a month of spare time building my 1911; him showing me how to fit rails, polish sear engagement, fit a match grade bushing, and assemble the gun. Not to mention time waiting for parts to arrive, and the time it took for me to save the $$$ to buy them. When the gun was done, and he took me to his gun club to test fire it, it may have been one of the best days of my "gun" life, firing that gun I had fitted and built at 19 years old.
They gun will print cloverleafs at 25 yards, and the only jams I had with it were in it's first firings. Those have since been corected. After many rounds through it (Over 1k), I have yet to have a malfunction. I really really love that gun. As I said in an earlier post here. It is as well built as any Baer or Wilson.
So. In the arena of fighting handguns, is it on par with my Glock 20? 16 rounds of 600+ FPE?
Nope. Not even close.
While the trigger is definitley nicer, I am proficient enough with my Glockenators to hit a head sized target out to some pretty healthy distances. It's all about the practice.
The Glock has a combat trigger. Not a target trigger. It is meant to be a purely fighting handgun. Not a "target handgun" (though I can introduce you to men who can print some pretty amazing groups with their Glocks)-
When analyze what a handgun is supposed to do, then compare the 1911, with it's critical fitting and tollerences, with the Glock that has a handful of moving parts, it just comes out on top. It does the job BETTER!
So, why does the FBI choose a 1911?
Well, they also chose a 10MM, and saw it was too much for their limp wristed agents. They also saw that the 9MM was too anemic. Their track record of selecting guns isn't exactly something to brag about, so the 1911 guys who cite the FBI selection as support of the 1911 aren't bolstering the image of it.
Besides.
They also have Cocobolo grips on the gun.
Is that really fucking nessacary? That alone tells me that the selection of the gun had a LOT to do with asthetics, and lore compared to functionality.
The 1911 had been, is, and always will be the darling of America. Just as i'm sure the Glock is the darling of Europe.
The only difference is, with the 1911, it's support are based on intangiables and trigger, as opposed to overall ability of the gun.

Hell. That was long. I'm done.

What is the purpose of a pistol? Most would agree with short range defensive use where fast and accurate shots are required. For me, the 1911 design is the best for this role. I started out with 1911s. I've owned a Glock 21 and an H&K USP .45 along the way. They were nice guns. But I could never shoot them as fast and accurately as I could my Colts. They took up space in my gunsafe. Exit Glock and HK, stage left.

The ergonomics of the 1911 for me are tops, period. The popularity and design of the 1911 pretty much allows you to set it up as you please. Pretty much unlimited aftermarket parts and countless smiths are available if you WANT them. You are damn limited with the Grocks, SIGs and HKs in this regard.

The take home message is use what works for you. For the $, the Glocks are a fine gun (although I still think they look like crap!)

Uh, Glocks don't win "races" against 1911s. The 1911 kinda has the advantage of both the American and the Japanese car.



No.

The 1911 [i]is[/i] faster.

The safety on the 1911 doesn't slow it down--you disengage it during presentation (what--do you think the fight begins with your weapon aimed at the target and the saftey on?).

However, the Glock's trigger [i]does[/i] slow it down. Mushy triggers require more care--a slower press--for the same level of accuracy. If you try to match the 1911's speed with a Glock, you will begin to mash the trigger, pulling your shot off--something much more likely to happen in the stress of a gunfight or speed shooting event.

That's why the race gun guys go for the 1911. It's faster. And they do most their shooting well inside 50 yards, too. A Glock has sufficient accuracy for what they do. Just not [i]sufficient accuracy fast enough[/i].

Talking about 1911's jamming, now all of you that shoot alot like I do have probably seen every time of gun jam. I 've seen it all, 1911's, Glocks, whatever, I've seen every type of gun jam so what does that mean or prove? Not much. Most jams are probably due to piss poor ammo or magazines and is not really any measure of performance for the gun itself. In my TRP 1911 I only use Wilson mags and stick with good factory ammo, I'm sure that greatly contributes to my 100% reliability. As reliability is concerned, the shooter has a lot to do with that, taking proper care of the gun (clean & lube), choosing good magazines, and feeding it good ammo. So it comes down to more than just the gun, it's the whole system that makes a gun reliable or not (your care, magazines, and ammo). I'm sure I could take a crappy mag and get some of Billy Bob's reloads and never clean and oil the TRP and create a jam-o-matic, but I wouldn't. None of my Glocks or Sigs have ever jammed either, because I take care of them just as much as my TRP.

How do you define a 1911?  What are the attributes that make a gun a 1911? It can't just be a dropping barrel.  Almost all autoloaders do that.  It it the combination, single stack, trigger mechanisim, and locking method?

[b]Uh, Glocks don't win "races" against 1911s. The 1911 kinda has the advantage of both the American and the Japanese car.[/b]

If you can't comprehend the paralell, I won't try to explain it.

[b]No.[/b]

Yes.

[b]The safety on the 1911 doesn't slow it down--you disengage it during presentation (what--do you think the fight begins with your weapon aimed at the target and the saftey on?). [/b]

It requires a seperate element of motion. You have to break your grip on the gun in order to disengage, then reaquire grip while gaining  sight picture. With the Glock, once you lay the web of your thumb on the backstrap, grip, and draw, you are in action. No safeties that require altering your grip format to disengage.

[b]However, the Glock's trigger [i]does[/i] slow it down.[/b]

That tells me you need practice shooting Glocks. Not that there is a problem with the gun.

[b]Mushy triggers require more care--a slower press--for the same level of accuracy.[/b]

Bullshit. With proper trigger control, and [size=5]PRACTICE WITH THE GUN[/size=5] you too can master the Glocks trigger.

[b]If you try to match the 1911's speed with a Glock, you will begin to mash the trigger, pulling your shot off[/b]


You keep saying "you will do (this)" or "you will do (that)- Maybe [b]YOU[/b] pull shots with Glocks, but I don't. Every GSSF match I have ever read about seems to have thousands of shooters who don't "pull" shots. So, if "YOU" pull shots with Glocks, fine. But again. That's a you problem. Not a Glock one.

[b]That's why the race gun guys go for the 1911.[/b]

Race Guns are for racing.

[b]It's faster.
And they do most their shooting well inside 50 yards, too. A Glock has sufficient accuracy for what they do. Just not [i]sufficient accuracy fast enough[/b]

Again. You are talking about paper punching using the most impractical guns ever devised. Strictly a gun game. We ain't talking IPSC here.

And it can be done [i]quicker[/i] with a good trigger. Up fast and furious is best done with a good trigger.

A good trigger is a key point of a fighting handgun. Because reasonable accuracy [i]as fast as possible[/i] depends upon it.

Landon said:

"So. In the arena of fighting handguns, is it on par with my Glock 20? 16 rounds of 600+ FPE?
Nope. Not even close."

OK, if you want to go that route then your Glock 20 doesn't even come close to a Oly or Carbon AR-15 pistol with 30 rounds of 1000+ FPE. So we should all carry ar-15 pistols [}:D]

Ahhhhhh... The craven scared head of weak logic shows itself yet again in the endless attempt of 1911 proponents depsratley trying to justify their arcane relic in the modern age. I have seen this so many times, I could write a book entitled
[i]"If you can't hit your target in 8 Rounds"[/i]
By Landon

More rounds is better. Period.
According to your own logic, we all should be using revolvers, since they are more reliable than any autoloader, and
"if you can't hit your target in 6 rounds blah blah blah..."

See?
The one gun, the Glock 20, that so soundly defeats the 1911 in so many ways, can't be debated on a gun for gun level.
All the 1911 guys can do is cite the
"If you can't hit your target in (X) rounds" cliche...

That says nothing of your 1911. That has nothing to do with either 1911's or Glocks.
That has to do with marksmanship, which is not what we are talking about.
BTW- Should we all revert back to bolt action '03 Springfields, since they have more range, and "if you need 30 rounds to hit your target blah blah blah..."

Landon said:

"It requires a seperate element of motion. You have to break your grip on the gun in order to disengage, then reaquire grip while gaining sight picture. With the Glock, once you lay the web of your thumb on the backstrap, grip, and draw, you are in action. No safeties that require altering your grip format to disengage."

I used to think this too, until I became proficient with 1911 style guns. Like DonS said, the safety is disengaged DURING presentation, not after. It's part of the draw and takes no time once it is mastered.

Either you have very strange hands, or you haven't tried this.

I have yet to see anyone who has to shift their grip to disengage the safety on a 1911. Once the web of my hand is on my 1911s backstrap, it stays there while I disengage the safety, etc.



Yes, to a degree, but a higher level of performance will be achieved with the same amount of practice with a 1911.

That's the point.



I think it is nice that they have their own competition, so they don't have to compete against superior designs.



Actually, I'm talking about what they use in the highest level of handgun competition. They choose the platform which is the fastest. If Glocks were faster, they would use them.

The bottom line: crisp triggers are superior, and this is particularly true in speed work.

I used to write off the 1911 fans as just a bunch of reactionaries. "1911: the official pistol of cranky old farts." Then I started using a Kimber.

The trigger is very, very good. The longer sight radius and barrel, together with some nice manufacturing, make it very accurate. It's controllable. You can shoot at stuff a hundred yards away or more and have a plausible chance of hitting.

It requires more training than a Glock or a Sig--you have to manipulate the safety, and there's no second strike capability.

But it's really an amazing piece of work. It was designed for horse cavalary, but is still relevant today. it's a bit large for concealed carry, but if open carry were allowed, or if you're in the great outdoors, it's still tough to beat.

Or maybe I just became a cranky old fart.

[b]I have yet to see anyone who has to shift their grip to disengage the safety on a 1911. Once the web of my hand is on my 1911s backstrap, it stays there while I disengage the safety, etc.[/b]

Break. Not "shift". Meaning, with a Glock, once grip is achieved, from the moment contact is made, it is only a matter of drawing the gun. With the 1911, once contact is made, it is a matter of drawing the gun WHILE disengaging a safety (assuming you are carrying C&L)...
While it isn't too difficult a thing to master, it is indeed another step that has to be taken in order to bring the gun to ready. When you examine the other disciplines that have to be undertaken with a C&L 1911 in order to safely fire it (ie- keeping your finger completley off the trigger) it becomes a very specific process. In a gunfight, where I am scared shitless, I don't want to have to worry about draw/safety/present/trigger-fire.
Glock gives me Draw/Present/Fire- Less steps save lives.


[b]Yes, to a degree, but a higher level of performance will be achieved with the same amount of practice with a 1911. [/b]

If you are talking paperpunching, absolutley. The 1911 will always be a more accurate gun. But, is that element of the 1911 truly benificial in the practical sense?
In a handgun fight at 0-7 yards (Or even 15-20), is that going to matter? If you can't hit with your Glock at those distances, you need to practice. A 1911 itself isn't an immediate qualifier for quality shooting and training.
It is all about mastery of the trigger. With a Glock, the trigger can be mastered to the point that it can fire off shots so fast, any advantage held by a single action trigger is negligable at combat ranges.


[b]I think it is nice that they have their own competition, so they don't have to compete against superior designs.[/b]

They are using combat handguns. Not race guns.
If you think IPSC is good training, well, you'd better hope you never have to gunfight someone that has practical training.


[b]Actually, I'm talking about what they use in the highest level of handgun competition.[/b]

LMAO!! Yeah. IPSC- If you think that IPSC, even IPSC Limited, is viable training for anything beyond the most rudimentery body mechanics in a actual gunfight, well, I got a bridge to sell you.

[b]The bottom line: crisp triggers are superior, and this is particularly true in speed work.[/b]

Crisp triggers are sure nice. But it is a training issue. Pure and simple. You can master a Glock for any practical purpose.
And please stop citing IPSC as being a synonym for Gunfight. It isn't so, and you know it.

Landon said:

"More rounds is better. Period"

I guess so if you plan to spray & pray. On the other hand I measure the combat effictiveness of a handgun by how fast it can put hits on target and the 1911 is still the king in that area.

"LMAO!! Yeah. IPSC- If you think that IPSC, even IPSC Limited, is viable training for anything beyond the most rudimentery body mechanics in a actual gunfight, well, I got a bridge to sell you."

Oh I'd love to see you in a gunfight against one of those IPSC gamers like Todd Jarrett, I really doubt you would be doing much laughing.

No.

Handgun fights typically go down two ways.

Lots of shots and few hits, or few shots and mostly hits.

This is because that actual shooting required isn't very difficult, but people lose self control and miss anyway. Or else they don't lose self control, and they hit, hit, hit.

In any case, you run out of time before you run out of ammo.



First, revolvers are [i]not[/i] more reliable. Autos tend to be more reliable under adverse conditions. Revolvers are less suceptable to failures from bad ammo, that is all. With good magazines and good ammo, a reliable auto pistol (like [i]my[/i] 1911) should be more reliable than a revolver.

Second, my primary reason for owning an autoloader is the single-action-every-shot operation.

Other reasons are the compactness of the auto, faster reloading, and a couple of extra rounds.

Tactically, fast reloading is more important than lots of rounds in the magazine. After you have engaged (and fired rounds), you won't know how many rounds you fired, and you want to reload with a fresh magazine. I prefer doing this with a magazine than with a speedloader or full moon clip.

Having a couple of extra rounds in nice. Six is probably three more than you need, but in my 1911, my nine are about six more than I should need. If you search the records, you can probably find a couple of gunfights where someone really needed more than five or six rounds in a handgun. Probably zero where they needed more than eight.



The Glock really only defeats the 1911 in low cost of manufacture.

We have lots and lots of records of gunfights, and these prove that large magazine capacities are not needed. Logic tells us why--the nature of handgun fights is such that they are over before many rounds can be fire.



Actual tactical usage should dictate what handgun features are important.

Actual usage suggests that high capacity magazines are irrelevent.

Matter of fact dumbass, I saw Jarrett at an IPSC match at the Florida Sports Park in Naples Florida.
Man, he sure is a bad boy. And he would definitley beat me in a gunfight.

What does Todd Jarret being a better shooter than me have to do with the viability of IPSC as training for an actual gunfight?
Does Todd's gun with the 4X Port comp, electric sight, light loads, and no recoil properly train him for a gunfight?

Idiot.

Ok numbnuts, Todd is an IPSC shooter, he spends alot of his time practicing for IPSC shooting, that practice (and being a natural born shooter) helps him perfect the art of putting rounds on target very quickly which is a very big help in practical defensive shooting. He does amazing work with a stock SA 1911 as well. People that have not actually competed in IPSC say the same shit you said, that it does not help in real shooting situations but you are wrong. I would wager that a middle of the road IPSC shooter is much better in any shooting scenario than middle of the road cop, or informal target range shooter.

[b]Handgun fights typically go down two ways.
Lots of shots and few hits, or few shots and mostly hits. yadda yadda snip[/b]

We agree on the stats of Gunfights. But a Glock 20 represents 16 potential hits of 600+ fpe, where a 1911 represents 8 of a lesser energy value. While you can play the odds that you won't need more, I would prefer to have them just in case (not to mention a 10MM will do me better with the first shot than a 0.45 calibre will)


[b]First, revolvers are [i]not[/i] more reliable. Autos tend to be more reliable under adverse conditions. Revolvers are less suceptable to failures from bad ammo, that is all. With good magazines and good ammo, a reliable auto pistol (like [i]my[/i] 1911) should be more reliable than a revolver.[/b]

Ok. This is laughibly wrong.
Tunnel Rats in Nam carried .38's because thier 1911;s would lock up when they got too dirty. SEALS used Stainless .357's for the longest time, because they were the only gun that could function after being submerged in water (This has since changed, but not because of the 1911)
My personal experience hunting wet Gators in C. Florida and So. Florida has taught me that an autoloader of any sort, be it Glock or for damn sure 1911, just can't hack it when it has to be hauled through the muck. I just don't know how to respond to something that is so blatently wrong....

[b]Second, my primary reason for owning an autoloader is the single-action-every-shot operation.[/b]

That's a legitimate reason.

[b]Other reasons are the compactness of the auto, faster reloading, and a couple of extra rounds.[/b]

Why do you need the extra rounds? Remember?

[b]Tactically, fast reloading is more important than lots of rounds in the magazine.[/b]

Huh? You are saying a fst reload is better than not having to reload to shoot the same number of rounds? PLEASE PLEASE explain this one.

[b]After you have engaged (and fired rounds), you won't know how many rounds you fired, and you want to reload with a fresh magazine. I prefer doing this with a magazine than with a speedloader or full moon clip.[/b]

Of course fast loading is important, but again. You are reverting to tactical issues to try to justify the gun. Are you saying a 1911 can be reloaded faster then a Glock?
I don't think so.

[b]If you search the records, you can probably find a couple of gunfights where someone really needed more than five or six rounds in a handgun. Probably zero where they needed more than eight.[/b]

I'll give you one chance to recant this blantly wrong and assumptive comment before you force me to go find you a littany of contradictory evidence.


[b]We have lots and lots of records of gunfights, and these prove that large magazine capacities are not needed. Logic tells us why--the nature of handgun fights is such that they are over before many rounds can be fire. [/b]

We agree on this. But you are trying to justify having less rounds is better. I;ll give you an example. I don't plan on taking any long distance trips in my car. I use appx. $8.00 worth of Gas a week. But I still keep a full tank. Why? Because if I need it, it is there for me. Should I only keep $8.00 worth of Gas in my tank, since that is all I will [i]likely[/b] need?


[b]Actual tactical usage should dictate what handgun features are important.[/b]

Of course they do. But you have been citing mainly tactics as opposed to tactical refinements of the 1911 (Outside of the trigger)

No one has ever set a speed shooting record with a Glock. Even (or should I say especially) where only hits count.
If you are breaking your grip on a 1911 to disengage the trigger, you don't know what you are doing.
The thumb presses down the safety as the pistol is drawn. Once the thumb has pressed the safety, it stays there. Actually, in a great place for a proper grip even.

Addition:
And a 1911 is more concealable. It's flatter. Ever hear of Glocks refered to as "bricks". They aren't flat.

Damn strait, Landon.

Who is talking about IPSC? That is a good GAME, but serious shooters prefer IDPA (no candyass, tricked out 1911s). GSSF matches are pretty good too.

Tyler

Landon was just killing strawmen.

The issue isn't the reality of ISPC or IDPA or GSSF, or the practicality of the guns involved.

The issue is what trigger/safety action is faster. The IPSC boys are going to use that as the basis of their race guns. If Landon was right, and the Glock was faster than a 1911, they would use that. They don't.

The same is true for IDPA. If Glocks were faster, they would use them.

If Glocks were faster, they would dominate both types of competition. Both are speed competitions with large targets up close. The competators are going to use whatever gives them an advantage.

Of course, none of this applies to GSSF, where the action type is specified up front.

Speaking of IDPA, go check out the qualification scores for each level of marksmanship:  master, expert, sharpshooter, etc.  You will notice that you must be considerably faster with a 1911 in 45ACP (custom defense pistol) than with a stock service pistol such as a 9mm or .40 Glock.  You have to be faster still with a 9mm or .40 1911 or Highpower single action (enhanced service pistol.)  Even with the increased recoil of a 45ACP you must be FASTER with a 1911 than a guy with a 9mm Glock to qualify for any given rating. So....shooting the 9mm Glock is easier and more efficient?  Maybe Mr. Wilson and those other guys on the IDPA board of directors are full of crap?  Yeah, right.  Watch-Six

I guess I've stuck with 1911s because I frankly haven't had a reason to change.  Started with them shooting Highpower, enjoyed them.  The only problems I've had usually relate to keeping a firm wrist with low power wadcutter stuff. I admire the Glocks and HPs, but don't see the need to get new weapons and then retrain myself to them.


Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, prefers a 1911, although he asserts this is his personal choice, and to each his/her own.  The opinion of a guy like Clint should carry a lot of weight, though.

I personally believe there is so much "nothing beats a 1911" because of the "NIH" or "not invented here" syndrome, famous in military purchasing policy. Yes we know the 1911 has been around 80 years, but you have to remember there was a time when it wasn't and it had it's critics as well.

45ACP is a hell of a round, good record, lots of choice in bullets. BUT it is not the be all end all in man-stoppers. I am sure we all have heard/read stories/reports of guys taking shotgun blasts to the chest and kept going. If you shot someone similar with a 45 I think you would wish for more rounds.

LIGHT, CRISP, SHORT trigger pulls do not belong on a carry/personal defense gun. Matter of fact your carry/home defense gun should have a completely stock mechanism. If you shoot someone and you go to court you will be demonized and said to be looking for a fight with your modified gun, think it hasn't happened? It is an accident/liability waiting to happen, proven in shooting accidents with cops as well as civilians. It also will not likely make much of a differnce as most shootings take place inside 10' so such a trigger is actually of no value. Hopefully none of us have to pull a gun much less shoot someone but if we do can you imagine the bodies reaction to the stress and adrenaline? Your body movements go from fine motor skill to gross motor skills and controlling a twitchy trigger will be a challenge.

So what if in a DA your first round in a defensive shooting is not as good a "1911" trigger, your follow up shots will be quite adequate at 10'. I like DAO and Glock's "Sponge" trigger, haven't hindered me.

If I was going to take ONE SA pistol everywhere it would be a Browning HP, bar none.
BrenLover

You need to re-read, not only what I said, but the original post.  This is my thread so I am quite aware of what I said.

I said this is [b]not[/] a Glock vs. 1911 debate, as per the original thread post.

The particulars I listed were a recap of resons of those for liking the 1911, or the logic behind it being worthy of the following it has.  

Most of the points I discount as they are not really of strong enough to merit that much loyalty in the 1911.

I never said anything one way or another about the Glock...and it far from my ideal pistol, anyhow.

More power to you and your love of the 1911. I am only trying to see why is has such a wide following.

I guess the only slam is on your reading comprehension

And Landon and DonS, cut this 1911/Glock debate.  get your own thread!

Zaz

Actually Kimber does make one in .40 SW.  Very very nice gun, rather compact too, but pricey....1k.

Right now my carry gun is a POS ruger p94 because I can't afford anything else.  I hate DA/SA handguns, I can't get consistency when I master one action the other goes down the crapper, personally trigger  pull is everything. I would trade my left nut for a kimber.  I also think 1911's are more concealable because they are thinner plus they have better balance.
7+1.or 10+1...who cares? carry xtra mags and learn to shoot better.  The 1911 is not outdated.  It is good for ALL applications for those who wish to know how to use it.

Go Hokies!!!

Energy figures have little to do with a bullets ability to stop an attacker. From a stopping power perspective, I doubt that there is a meaningful advantage to the 10mm. The 10 does have a range advantage, and perhaps more importantly it has more potential for use against body armor and other "hard" targets.



Tunnel rats went to .22 semiautos (often with silencers) because of the noise of firing in enclosed spaces.

SEALs liked the revolver because it would [i]cycle under water[/i].

It is a fact that autos are more reliable than revolvers in mud, sand, etc. It's been documented in controlled tests.

The .38 revolvers involved in the M-9 testing performed very poorly in mud, etc.



Each time you shoot and fail to solve your problem, the chance that you will [i]ever[/i] be able to solve your problem goes down.

If you have failed to solve your problem with six shots, a seventh probably won't do it. And so on.

By having eight or nine shots, I pretty much guarentee I can solve any problem I can solve with a handgun.

Of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to own a handgun that carries more rounds. What it means is that I'm not about to sacrifise something that is more important to obtain those rounds.

I could go off and buy one of those hi-cap 1911s, but the extra grip size is a bad tradeoff IMO.



In a sense, yes. And I'm talking tactical reloads here, not really speed reloads. I.e., reloading so your weapon is fresh after an encounter. Just in case you have another encounter . . .



I am not saying the 1911 is faster at reloading. I'm talking about [i]tactical[/i] reloads, not [i]speed[/i] reloads.

I'm trying to explain to you why I prefer a semi over a revolver--and I'm saying that reloading speed is more important than magazine capacity.

OK. I know of a case where two cops fired 40+ shots, scoring one hit to the head. This was after the "bad guy" fired six shots with a .44 magnum, scoring 4 hits. The cops were saved by their vests, and only managed to hit the "bad guy" to to volume of fire.

But in this case, the cops probably would have done better if they ran up to the guy and beat him with their batons. Bullet proof vest and dumb luck, doesn't really count.

The fact is, few gunfights involve lots of shots being fired with handguns, and when that does happen it is almost operator error.



I'm not claiming less is better; I'm claiming more is irrelevent.



You might as well fill up your tank. You will use up the gas eventually. And you may drive farther than you expect.

With a gun, it is a little different. In order for you to use all the bullets in your gun to effect, you need time to do so. In a close range fight where a handgun is approriate, time is running out fast. The opponent will either shoot you, run away, get behind cover, or close with you, in seconds. You need to make solid hits, because no handgun rounds can be counted on to stop the attacker quickly unless major organs are destroyed (perferably, CNS).

Consequently, you need to be able to shoot with great speed and accuracy, but it is unlikely that you will have the time for more than a few shots.  



The trigger is the 1911's biggest tactical advantage over the Glock and the DA autos. It's flatness is also an advantage, both for carry and because it fits smaller hands better. I feel that it's grip angle is superior, although that's just opinion (with some research, it could possibly be verified as true or not). The 1911 also has a faster lock time than the Glock. This may seem academic, but others have told me that speeding up a 1911's lock time improves one's IPSC scores, and if this is true it is a real world advantage even if it is only a small one.

One has to discuss actual tactics to compare pistols with different capabilities. It is easy to imagine that large magazine capacities are a significant advantage among handguns, but my knowledge of real-world fights does not back this up, and I think I understand the dynamics of why that is the case. We have to discuss this to determine if the Glocks capacity advantage is important or not.

I think I know the gentleman you are talking about, Jerry Miculek. In the American Handgunner some time back, I believe that both him and Robbie of IPSC fame proved they could both shoot semis faster. Your typical semi cycles very fast. Revolvers are slower, because of the time for the trigger to return forward.

Frankly, I can only speak from experience. While I have been in more than one situation that required the gun I was carrying to resolve (not always necessary to have drawn it) and I have never had to fire in self defense, only once have I been under fire in an unexpected situation.

I'm pretty good about being aware of my surroundings, but in this particular case the first sign of trouble was the bullet breaking the window I was walking past.

By the time the friend with me got out "What was th.." I had already knocked him down next to a car and had taken cover behind a mailbox / vehicle while trying to ascertain where the shot had come from. Without thinking I had drawn my 1911 and it was in my hand, finger barely on the trigger, safety still on.

Good training, good reactions? Who knows. But it was a real reaction in a real incident. It took about 2 seconds total time out of my life; I remember those 2 seconds as if they took five minutes. Would it have made a difference if I was carrying a Glock? Who knows. I had fired one of mine in a dozen or so IDPA matches; I did better shooting a 1911.

Feel free to flame ->

I am getting real sick of two things:

(1)  People think that 19 rounds of 9mm or whatever is best.  Total crap.  Any reputable gun instructor will tell you a simple phrase:  "If you have to shoot more than twice, you are losing."  That leaves, most of the time, around 15 rounds not being used.  A big, ugly, double stacked, heavy handgun is inferior in most applications.  

(2)People flocking to pure hype.  I can picture some people going..."ohhh, coool, look!, a new Glock (or SIG).  Put away that nasty [i]old[/i] 1911 and Hi-Power!  loook at these coool new guns!  ooooh, and they're BLACK!  oooh, they look evil!! yeah, I want one.  They are better than proven technology!!"

I think much of this thread has confused the notion of the "mechanics of shooting" and sound "tactical" shooting.

Being able to shoot very fast and very accurately is a wonderful skill. Top IPSC, speed steel, and IDPA guys have this in spades. There are excellent GrandMaster shooters who shoot glocks, not that many, but there are a few. And don't be fooled into thinking those guys are only "good" because of the comps, optical sights, hi-cap mags etc. Put a bone stock .45 or glock 23 in their hands, and they'll still smoke 99.99 of the people in shooting skills.

Now, the smarter game players make no pretense about bing "tactical" and leave that to the likes of Clint Smith, Greg Hamilton, Marty Hayes, etc. Remember the pyramid of importance for winning a confrontration (in decending importance)

MINDSET
TACTICS
TRAINING
EQUIPMENT (I'm guessing >5% a factor in success

I fail to see how deriding the IPSC type shooters for not being "real" or tactical is valid. Whatever they shoot (and most, but not all  shoot 1911 type guns) they are damn fast, and damn accurate...

And btw - I carry a Glock 23. Great gun, but I also love my .45...

Remember, it's all good.

Regards,
Francis

If you are really concearned with finding out, perhaps you should go over to a 1911 site.

However, history and mystique do factor in, and maybe you can get an idea from the fact that today, with all our choices, groups like FBI SWAT, LAPD SWAT (one of the best in the country), and various elite military units still use the 1911. And it still dominates most competition.

Its performance is based mostly on its trigger, although a fast lock time and a good grip help out.



Handguns don't exist in a vaccum. The only way we have of evaluating them is ultimtly based on comparisons. The 1911 has a good trigger . . . compared to other semi autos. The 1911 v Glock debate is one of the best ways to get to understand each firearm.

And, aside from that, "standard" DA autos with the long and heavy initial trigger pull are a drag. The Glock comes closer to 1911 performance than the traditional DAs.

If you want to compare the Browning HP, SIG P-210, CZ-75, or the neat little HK squeeze-cockers to the 1911, there would be even less to choose, IMO. Well, the HPs I've tried have fallen short of the best 1911 triggers. The P-210 is too damn expensive. The CZs I tried were mixed: most were gritty, but one had an excellent trigger pull out of the box. The CZ might very well be better than the 1911, although the difference is small. I don't have any experience with the HK, and the action is sooo different I don't want to guess about it . . .

I prefer my HP, my H&K tactical, my Model 19 all over my 1911. Maybe some of you can get better results out of your tricked out 1911's, but for me, stock guns, reliability and accuracy are better with the other guns.

If the .45 is choosen because of the belief that the .45ACP is a vastly superior stopper they are mistaken.  Look at the data from actual shootings: [url]www.evanmarshall.com/towert/stoppingpowerfigures.htm[/url]

The 9mm loaded with +p+ is on a par with the .45ACP.  Ball ammunition in any pistol caliber is a poor performer, the .45 included.

I'll take 13 rounds of 9mm Cor-Bon any day over 8 rounds of any .45 load.  Of course I might shoot it in my High Power. [;)]

357mag

357Mag, the Marshall-Sanow stopping power stats are based on poor science and poor data collection technique.  No one outside the gun rag commandos takes them seriously.

NOTHING speaks with more authority than actual data.  If someone has better data then I would like to see it.

RikWriter, exactly what was poor about the science?

357mag

Check this site out:
[url]http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm[/url]

This is an interesting topic.

I have a personal preference for single stack autos:

[img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1157297&a=11109695&p=52026289&Sequence=0&res=high[/img]

[img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1157297&a=11109695&p=52026292&Sequence=0&res=high[/img]

[img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1157297&a=11109695&p=52026270&Sequence=0&res=high[/img]

I personally learned to shoot on a Taurus PT99, and am extremely comfortable with the Beretta I now have.

However, I don't feel underarmed with ANY of the single stack guns above.  If I really need firepower, I would go for a Benelli M3 or an FNC or SA-58.  For Concealed Carry (when I was still legal in VA--can't have CC here in IL) the HK P7 PSP is perfect--flat, unobtrusive and simple to operate (and VERY accurate).  

I just sold a Glock 22--for the reasons listed above--the trigger is "different" than any of the other guns I own, and I never did put the time in to learn it well.  If I had to ONLY use a Glock, yes, I would put significant time into it to learn it.  But I like shooting all my guns, so the Glock kind of fell by the wayside.

I did shoot in a couple of GSSF matches in VA--did "middle of the pack" basically, and I have a REAL bad tendancy to mash the shot with them when I am in a hurry.  But, the top shooters who did well were able to "sweep" the targets--no hesitation on any of the targets, a smooth swing from one side to the other.

One gun I will alway hold on to is my Glock 20, for the specific reasons Landon mentioned--it is a HELL of a lot of firepower in a handgun.  I have replaced the sights with Millett adjustable's because I hate the factory Glock Sights.

One other gun I have is a Colt Delta Elite--a REAL nice gun, and it is a nice combination of handling and firepower.

So, in the end--yes there is a "cult" following of the 1911.  It is still an excellent gun--handles well, and in a substantial caliber.  Some of the more modern designs do have some benefits (Hi-cap, double action, etc.) but it all boils down to individual preference on a handgun selection.

.45ACP is a Great round & the 1911 is a classic design.

I have yet to handle a pistol that feels as good in my hand a a nice 1911.

The design has stood the test of time well.

It's probably subjective opnions on the 1911 but I think the .45ACP is a great cartridge especially when loaded up to +p levels.

This post made the 1911 forums, their not to happy with some of us.

HI guys,
I am new here so I and I don't want to step on any toes.
This is an interesting topic to say the least, I agree with M16Man, stubbs, and many others. IME most any single action sidearm will probably be a faster accurate FIRST shot hit, and he who hits first usually wins.
Revolvers can be fired fast, but with defense loads [ 357 or the like ] many shooters wont hit much with the follow up shots.
A-lot of rounds is nice in a running gunfight, but a shotgun is better.
I have carried a SIG { and like it very much } I have shot over 10k rounds out of Glocks and they just plain work every time.
If I were going to buy a { out of the box } pistol to carry it would be a SIG 229, but it's not in the same league as a well tuned 1911 IMO.
When it come to getting that front site planted and keeping it there when I press the trigger under stress I have not found anything faster than a 1911.
To each his own, I will keep my 1911.
Just MHO.
Have a great week.
~S

Well damn!!

Someone should have said so sooner.

Perhaps this will make any visitors
feel more at home.

[img]http://home.earthlink.net/~thegardenweasel/yellock.gif[/img]

Interesting.  Definitely food for thought.

357mag

Damn good read, but in conclusion, I still have to go with Marshall/Sanow on this one. THe only refutation the author was able to make was purely theoretical. While the data gathering techniques may have been flawed in some areas, the author of that report trys to negate any legitimate findings by Marshall/Sanow by citing an irrelevant faux-pa they made in another arena of balistic study. Not to mention, his incessant reminding everyone that they were "bullet salesman" tells me he was assuming they were trying to pimp a product (In this case, bullets) based on $$$, rather then trying to sell a product they really believe in.
While Marshall/Sanow provided practical, raw data based on experimentation (Not to mention a shit-load of data gathered from real world gunfights), all this clown could do is sit back, and refute based on the theoretical.

Strangely enough I agree with Landon on this one. While the Marshall/Sanow stats are far from perfect, they do offer some comparison between the available ammo types and anyone that knows about ammo and ballistics could see that there findings are not completely off in left field and do provide some data which is better than no data at all and just going with marketing hype.